Sandy Thomas

The appellant, Garey Harris, appealed his convictions for weapons and drug trafficking offences, arguing errors in the application judge's Charter decisions (ss. 8 and 9) and the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the Charter arguments, upholding the finding that police had reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search warrant was valid, with only a minor, non-prejudicial Charter breach regarding police remaining in the unit.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in jury instructions by potentially removing a legitimate defence from the jury's consideration, specifically regarding competing inferences of control over the seized items due to the presence of other individuals connected to the unit.

This error jeopardized the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed in part, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing opium and sought leave to appeal her sentence.

The conviction appeal was based on alleged errors in jury instructions regarding the weight of opium evidence and the W.(D.) instruction.

The sentence appeal argued the amount of opium was not "substantial" and that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's handling of evidence or jury instructions, and upholding the sentence as fit.

The accused was convicted of drug trafficking and possession.

He appealed, arguing unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had applied the 30-month presumptive ceiling from *R. v. Jordan*, dismissing the stay application.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by applying the 30-month ceiling instead of the 18-month ceiling, as the accused was tried in the Ontario Court of Justice without a preliminary inquiry.

The Court determined that the Crown failed to justify the excessive delay, as the case was not complex enough and the Crown's reliance on the prior *Morin* framework was unreasonable given its dilatory conduct.

The appeal was allowed, and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal raised three main issues: the validity of the search warrants, the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis regarding the exclusion of evidence, and the finding that possession was for trafficking purposes.

The trial judge had found a reasonable apprehension of bias by the issuing justice due to an indirect familial connection, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the search warrant was validly issued on the merits, the s. 24(2) analysis was appropriate, and the quantity and nature of materials seized supported the trafficking inference.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and ketamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly drew inferences of knowledge and control based on the appellant's possession of a key to the locked bedroom where contraband was found, his attempt to enter the bedroom immediately after police entry, and the discovery of his social insurance card in a drawer adjacent to where drugs were found, along with buy money.

The court found this constellation of evidence created a powerful inference of possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted at trial of tax evasion for failing to file income tax returns for four consecutive tax years (2007-2010) while receiving over $2 million in salary, bonuses, and dividends from his company.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of up to two years plus a fine of 100% of taxes evaded.

The defence sought a conditional sentence with a fine of 50-100% of taxes evaded.

The court imposed a 20-month custodial sentence and a fine of 100% of the taxes evaded ($552,976), finding that a conditional sentence would not provide sufficient deterrence given the sophistication of the offender, the scale of the evasion, and the ease with which such offences can be committed.

The accused was charged with wilfully evading or attempting to evade payment of $552,976 in Federal taxes by failing to file income tax returns for the taxation years 2007-2010 contrary to s.239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

The accused admitted the failure to file but claimed he always intended to pay taxes in the future.

The Crown argued the accused deliberately chose not to file to avoid immediate tax payment.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to evade taxes.

The court found the accused was not a credible witness and that his claim of future intent to pay did not provide a defence to tax evasion.

The accused was charged with Fraud Over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The accused was arrested and charged on December 14, 2014, with trial scheduled to commence July 19, 2016, representing a total delay of 584 days.

The court analyzed the delay using the framework established in R. v. Morin, categorizing periods as intake time, inherent time, Crown delay, and institutional delay.

The court found that Crown and institutional delay totaled only 55 days, with the remainder attributable to necessary case management, disclosure, translation, and trial preparation.

The court concluded the delay was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed his conviction for tax evasion under s. 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act following a lengthy trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

He argued that the trial judge erred in assessing the mens rea for tax evasion, rendered inconsistent findings by accepting the direct method of proof while rejecting the net worth method, and improperly reversed the burden of proof by relying on assumptions made by a CRA investigator.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for wilful tax evasion and that the evidence supported the finding that the appellant knowingly failed to file a tax return to avoid payment of taxes.

The court further found no inconsistency between rejecting one evidentiary method while accepting another and no improper shifting of the burden of proof.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.